The American Civil Rights movement.
It's a little abstract, but it worked like this. MLK jr. was not the only civil rights leader, and non-violence was not the only option. Malcolm X never advocated violence directly, but used the term "By Many Means Necessary". He was also a sharp critic of MLK, because MLK's strategy was based off of Gandhi's (Gandhi had a majority do non-violence, MLK had a minority) ideals. Later, after Malcolm X calmed down (only a little) he made the comment that White people should listen to MLK, if only because if they didn't work things out with MLK's non-violence, they would have to deal with Malcolm's "Means".
In the way, violence helped the civil rights movement. MLK was the diplomacy for Malcolm's army. Still, there were many southern towns that were burned to the ground (one extended account of the happenings in Oxford, NC is in a book "Blood Done Sign My Name" by Tim Tyson, very very highly recommended).
Everything has it's place in strategy. Ideals and ideology can only take you so far. Everything has it's time and place, and there is no one single perfectly effective or moral answer to any problem. Non-violence worked for Gandhi, but it wouldn't have worked for combating the Nazi's.
Here is a quote from "Blood Done Sign My Name":
"Unjust social orders do not fall merely by appeals to the consciences of the oppressor, though such appeals may be an important element; history teaches us that they fall because a large enough number of people organize a movement powerful enough to push them down"
2007-08-25 19:02:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Martin S 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
that question probaly ties into the "answer to life" there will alwas be some one who are violent (forgive me for my crapy spelling) and realy the person that is being so violent at first was being protective e.x. hermit crabs alwas find new shells a smart one finds one that doesn't look good but it works for him now another crab finds out he was being laszy too long and there are no more shells left so he go to a crab to take it from him this crab it just survival once so once this guy takes the shell the other guy is now knows he can't trust others and is now very protective of his things and of those people some are so protective they are violent this happend with the first people and kept on happening untill there was violence in every person on the face of the earth kinda like a instinct there has never been a time when violence brought full peace there will alwas be a trade off and the line inbetween protectiveness and voilence is undeterminded its up to your moral judgment to decide wheather your violent or protective
2007-08-26 02:27:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've noticed a lot of people are saying World War II, and that is true, however, I would cite a conflict that is a little closer to home. The American Revolution is a perfect example. Without a violent conflict with Britain, we would not have won our independence. Period. Diplomacy would have gotten us no-where.
2007-08-26 01:56:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by kieranhcorran 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Ultimate Fighting Championship?
2007-08-26 01:51:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
World War II, American Revolution...
Or in smaller cases, relatiation or getting an older sibling to "handle" a bully, or someone bothering you or pushing you around. Sometimes even though we don't like to hear it, violence helps to solve things.
2007-08-26 01:56:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Violence is usually the problem in the first place. But I think a good one would be the Revolutionary War.
2007-08-26 01:54:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by justask23 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Violence have solved so many things like overpopulation and the ever growing birth increase rates...(I'm using sarcasm to make my point that people shouldn't have to resort to violence)
But because of your details, I'd say violence have solved the situations in which people had to resort to sheer force...unless the people were just impatient and decided to kill each other off until they get their way.
2007-08-26 01:52:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
i dont realy think violence has ever solved ne prob.cauze probz can b solved by discussion (many a times) n so if u study history, u'll find dat most of de times wars, n fights could have be avioded but some gr8 ppl, never ever thought of an alternative 2 violence hence world peace was destroyed.
2007-08-26 01:57:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by rrrrrrrrr 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
When finally the Allies Countries sent troops to stop the evil Nazi Regime I(in the 1940's) and ultimately causing the suicide of Hitler.
2007-08-26 01:58:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by fun 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
world war 2
2007-08-26 01:51:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by justin m 1
·
2⤊
0⤋